One day last winter, at a country house hotel in Leicestershire, the England and Wales Cricket Board held a series of seminars – discussion groups, in front of an invited audience of interested parties involved in the game in all its constituent parts– with the object of producing a paper as a blueprint for the future of cricket, both domestically and internationally. My contribution to this was to sit on a panel to chew over ideas about selection.

Broadly speaking, as a starting point, I outlined what I saw as the function of and the qualities needed to be a national selector. Firstly, I suggested, it is the fundamental role of the national selector and his associates to communicate with the team director (actually it was still coach back then) and the captain to find out in detail their envisaged strategy for a match, series or a tour, and then head-hunt the best personnel appropriate to carrying out that. It is not in the brief to dictate or really contribute to strategy meetings.

Next came the qualities I believed were essential tools for a successful selector. As far as I can recall, these included, of course, a significant playing career at the top levels, but unlike many I did not regard this as the chief criterion. "You do not need to be able to drive," as my mother would tell me, "to know the way across town." Rather, I wanted to see a depth of knowledge about how the game is played, technical expertise (not coaching certificates but that which comes from playing and observing), sound judgment of cricketers' abilities and the confidence to back that, excellent communication skills, a willingness to go against the grain and, bearing in mind that this is not a job as such, the time to do it (whether all selectors should be full‑time employees is for another debate, although I think they should).

Finally, I thought that they should be disinterested, impartial, with no direct county allegiance or media interest and at least a generation removed from the current county and international scene. "And this," I said, directing my remark towards the fellow sitting next to me on the panel, "means that in my opinion, the presence of you, Ashley, on the selection panel is inappropriate." Nothing that has happened since has caused me to change my opinion.

From the outset, it has to be made clear that Ashley Giles was an impeccable cricketer, as good a professional as any he worked with according to Duncan Fletcher. He squeezed all he could out of his ability, making himself an integral part of a successful England team. He is rock solid when talking about the game. His integrity as a selector is unimpeachable.

Now, though, comes the "but". He is also extremely ambitious (no harm in this of course), and took on the role of Warwickshire's director of cricket with the clear aim, given that he would have liked the job given to Andy Flower, of running the England side one day. For now, though, asked as he was to be a selector because of his closeness to the county scene and the England set-up, he has been placed in an unfortunate position where charges of conflict of interest could be levelled. Both Ian Bell and Jonathan Trott, the fringe batting selections for the final Test, it will have been noted, are Warwickshire players. The Warwickshire wicketkeeper Tim Ambrose was promoted ahead of other worthy candidates. While there is absolutely nothing to suggest anything other than a selectorial consensus, the dangers are obvious.

This is not about Giles per se, but a general principle. Just think of the pitfalls. A less scrupulous person, were he in such a dual position, would be able to promote his own players. In fact, even those totally above board would have a natural inclination to go with players they knew or had worked with, something that applies to captains as well as coaches (for example, Flower's predecessor Peter Moores, under whose regime Ambrose was first selected, had worked with him at Sussex). In extreme circumstances, he could also under-promote a player or players to maintain county strength for a crucial match. Next, his position as a selector might place him in a position to attract cricketers to his club on the understanding that they could stand more chance of international recognition. Even were this not the case, cricketers might view it as such and covet a move just the same.

The idea that there should be someone close to the dressing room is just plainwrong. Giles is in the position at the moment of helping to select or otherwise players – Strauss, Flintoff, Pietersen, Bell, Cook, Harmison, Anderson, Panesar – with whom he shared a dressing room. Like it or not he will have loyalties built on their collective experiences. That is human nature. He might view it as no problem but he is in an invidious position. Giles, who not unnaturally and perfectly understandably disputes that there is any problem with a conflict of interest, takes no offence and is beyond reproach. But neither he, nor anyone in a similar position with a county, should be directly selecting England sides.